NASA's Griffin apologizes for controversial comments

NASA's Griffin apologizes for controversial comments

NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin, is backing away from comments he made last week in a National Public Radio interview. At the time Griffin stated that, ” …a trend of global warming exists, I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”

All I can really do is apologize to all you guys … I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this.”

The White House appointed administrator caused a flurry of controversy over his remarks prompting longtime NASA scientist, Jim Hansen to remark that “it indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change.”

Did Michael Griffin really retract his remarks with that quote? If he did, he should have waited a bit because there seems to be support for what he said. WARNING Desmoggers – You are about to enter a Denieralist zone!

Robert Ferguson, Director of the Science and Public Policy Institute: “Many rationalist scientists agree with him, clearly demonstrating there is no scientific consensus on man-made, catastrophic global warming.”

Dr. Walter Starck, an Australian marine scientist: “Griffin makes an important distinction between the scientific findings of climate change and dramatic predictions of catastrophic consequences accompanied by policy demands. The former can be evaluated by its evidence, but; the latter rest only on assertions and claims to authority. Alternate predictions of benefits from projected changes have been proposed with comparable authority and plausibility. For example, unless one chooses to define the Little Ice Age as “normal” and “optimal” the net effect of any warming has only been beneficial and any anthropogenic contribution very small indeed. Dramatic predictions of imminent disaster have a near perfect record of failure. Griffin’s note of caution in the escalating concern over climate change deserves sober consideration”.

Professor Robert Carter: “My main reaction to Michael Griffin is to congratulate him on his clear-sightedness, not to mention his courage in speaking out on such a controversial topic.”

Dr. Tim Ball: “Griffin’s statement is sensible because it allows time for the testing of the man-made global warming hypothesis to continue as it should.”

William Kininmonth, a former head of the Australian National Climate Centre: “I certainly support Griffin’s comments. Not only is it speculative to claim that humans can in any way influence the course of climate but it is arrogant to suggest that today’s climate is getting worse than it has been in the past. For example, who would prefer to return to pre-industrial conditions as they were during the Little Ice Age?”

Kansas geologist, Lee Gerhard: “Griffin’s statement focuses on the hubris that affects much of public policy. It is great to know that someone out there besides geologists understand that humans do not dominate earth’s dynamic systems.”

Ross McKitrick: “Claims of major, impending catastrophe are speculative and go far beyond what has been credibly established by researchers to date. Hence Griffin’s view is not at all controversial or out of step with available evidence, and he should be commended for having the courage to say it. The fact that it took courage, however, points to the deeper problem that questioning the catastrophic propaganda we hear so much is now considered politically incorrect.”

Dr. Patrick Michaels: “NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s statement about whether or not it is in fact a “problem” is supported by a scientific literature that his employee, James Hansen, appears to ignore. It is ironic that today President Bush appears to have given in to Hansen’s hysteria rather than to the calm reason of NASA Administrator Griffin.”

Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl: “I have always believed that the people who actually work with hard sciences and technology simply shouldn’t buy a cheap and soft pseudoscientific propaganda such as the ‘fight against climate change.”

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.